Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Juthika Rabidas vs M/O Defence on 4 March, 2021
J-
I
V
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CALCUTTA BENCH ;
KOLKATA
i
OA. 350/987/2016 Date of order: 04.03.2021
Present ' :Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
1. Juthika Rabidas, widow of late Shyamlal
Rabidas, aged about 52 years, Duley para
(Jelepara), Post Office- Ichapur, Nawabgang,
Dist- 24 PGS(N), Pin-743144.
2. Pravat Rabidas, son of late Shyamlal Rabidas, \
aged about 52 years, Duley para (Jelepara),
Post Office- Ichapur, Nawabgang, Dist- 24 PGS
(N), Pin-743144. S
Applicant. i
t
-versus-
1. The Union of India, service through ■ f
the Secretary, Ministry of :
DefencefDefence and Production),
Govt, of India, South Block, New Delhi-
110001. ;
r
2. The Director General Cum-
Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board,
having his office at 10A, Shaheed
Khudiram Bose Road, Kolkata
700001. '
3. The General Manager, Metal and Steel t
Factory, Ishapore, Post Office- i
Nawabgang, Dist- 24 PGS (N), Pin- ;
743144.
■s 7 •
p;;
IfF
2
i
r
4. The Works Manager/Assistant Works
Manager (Administration), Metal and
i-
Steel Factory, Ishapore, Post Office-
Nawabgang, Dist- 24 PGS (N), Pin.-
743144.
Respondents.
For the Applicant : Mr, P. C. Das, Counsel
Ms. T. Maity, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. K'. Prasad, Counsel
ORDER (Oral)
Per Ms. Bidisha Baneriee, JM:
This matter is taken up in the Single Bench in terms of Appendix VIII ! of Rule 154 of CAT Rules of Practice, as no complicated question of law is involved, and with the consent of both sides.
2. Heard Id. Counsel for both sides.
3. This application has been filed by the applicant to seek following i reliefs:
"8(a) Leave may be granted to the applicants to file this . application jointly under Rule 4(5}(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
i.
(b) To quash and/or set aside the impugned dated 26.11.2015 i issued by the Sr. General Manager, Metal & Steel Factory, Ishapore i by which the claim of the applicants has been rejected on the i ground which is not applicable in the present case and also reliance has been placed upon the decisions\of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is not applicable in view of the latest decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. ;
Mahesh Kumar reported in AIR 2015 (SC), Page 2411 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that terminal benefits cannot be taking into consideration for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment. ' . (c) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authority to grant the compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant No. 2 who has secured 89 marks but the persons .. ■ \ 5 ■'•I cl i .ill c ilf »;• ;
ai 3 >•
¥
r
concerned more than 45 candidates who got compassionate i !
appointment within the period 2002 to 2009 and not only than in the 45 candidates not a single candidate has scored 89 marks but ! despite the fact that the applicant no. 2 obtained 89!• marks and due to penurious condition of the family of the deceased employee, the case of the applicant no. 2 has not been considerd by the respondent authority in terms of Annexure A-19 which is a hostile discrimination by violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and on that ground itself, the applicant No. 2 is entitled to get compassionate appointment and his 'appointment should be given effect with effect from the date when the other persons have got the same along with all consequential benefits."
4. At hearing, Id. Counsel for applicant would allege discrimination meted out by the respondent authorities to the applicant vis-a-vis other candidates having stated as under:
(a) Despite scoring high points, during the year 2000-2006, her case has been rejected by the respondent authorities on the pretext that the judgement passed by the courts varies from person to person.
I
(b) During the said period, she had scored 89 points but she was not provided compassionate appointment. j
(c) During the aforesaid period, more than 45 candidates, whose scores varied, from 50-88, were given compassionate appointments .w'stra •j It appears from the impugned order dated 26.11.2015 that the Board [2> C l1 9 SLl %#/0f Office awarded 69 points out of 100 points scales to the applicant by taking I into consideration the different parameters in terms of MOD letter dated 09.03.2001 and it was the first consideration of the applicant. According to the speaking order, compassionate appointment could not be offered to the applicant no. 2 due to his lower merit position, as the cut-off score for the year was 73.
Thereafter, for a second time, the case was further placed before the Board of ;
I Awarded 89 points out of 100 Officers in the year of 2004 when the applicant was points scale, and the applicant was even recommended for appointment on compassionate ground but at the time of recommendation for appointment the * '! • j,' 4 1/ f ! instant case had crossed over 5 years. Hence, the applicant no. 2 could not be offered employment assistance. i
6. Ld. Counsel for applicant would then place a list of compassionate appointees during the January, 2000 to May, 2000 as annexed in Annexure A-20 to the OA, which shows that compassionate appointments were offered by the i :
department to those, who had scored much less than 69 marks, the list is as under:
C-O^PftSgSO^ATE APPOn-.TrV;EKT OumXC THE Y=Af. JA-S'JJAFYy00 TO i'.-A v I ftnr.o:<'jrc 0e«ig/5cc Da;« oi , "Scorlrfe ' S>. ' ; Ko. * ctppotnime'n*. > niart:s i Shrt GsnesJi Banstorc •• U0(U.SkyV&£ 26-07-2000 ; ■ :• 71 • 01 ;
(Stfl'S&ns Osv? LatXU.SkirvSS * 26-07-2000 52 ; 02 % } 03 | SrrS_ Gar.ga -Oevi 26-07-2000 | SS.
!
"j Shrt Hcmrnna CSayer. ; Laa(U.SkVYi£ ; 26-07-203Q { s*.. j
cw 1 \
' Smt. Sashtkate Pa^var. : laSfU.SS.-yVfiE 2&-07-2tX)0 ; 7s:
. OS
: S«nt. Rang^i Murmu '• LaJKU.SVVYiE 01-06-2000 • - 52^ •
r
✓ 06 |
-n:-' Ss*4:?; : st-?J S:- - ''Sc
~---7-3
■ S* ACao Alt 1
03 . U&iU.Sv.i-'Vic G5-05-2CC-0.
. i*
Sk. AixjsJl GsJfar » i
OS < UtKU.S<VY5E 01-06-2055 * . 55 I
^ q ' Sftrl Maftarej Oraon ' , • ' 1l
l^JXU.SkvViE 05-06-2000 V ? ss;-. i ; • i 5 j Stvi Pratfp Kumar Csahof \ . n '^XU.SfQtr&Z ■ 2605-2COO 1 70 *.
Shri Taraw Jaiswara . UtyU.SkXY&E 05-09-2000 ' 1 70
12 i
I
1 1
Smt. Munni Das ,2&-02f2pOt • :57
j 13 | » 'i l£b(U.SK>^5£
! SDri Ka^ietr. AB WontSaJ i , _________ l "f
/ 14 , : ujxu.sjon'&e '02-07-200* t -S
7 Shn Gou:am 1! UtXU.SkyYSE
15 : 02-0r-:Wi \ ■ ss
16 ;a:• Sfm Shecibrvu Kumar Snsv •i UttU.Sfci?Y3£ 02-07-2001 * . 57
____
17 j Km. SAarmisOia Stiome ;5 J Ut>(U.S<yY5£ 02-07-2C»ji • 55
J ; Sw?L PutuJ Jcshomra i J.
18 : ^etThfOrtfwV^I-C1- 31-01-2002 75 i 19 Smt. Eancan; Oaw *j §ata>*atefY&= ' 06-02-2002 5 i ■ *3 a • Shrl Surest) Kumar Shaw i T 20 j ? DurwanJS.O. 0602-2002 • S3
: Sml. AshnAzna Chstisfjet j , ^ ■ Peon/W.C. 21-31-2352 ' ? i 22 ! Sfm ffldyvt Kumar Yactav : OunhstuS.O. 10431 >2035 i 50 j \ * 5 t ?
'tr t :
DesigrSec Dst«of '.'<&wr*ftsTr • SI. : appolmmont; -rnarks ^ ' $o. ' ; sn;. Oas ; Ut>(U.SKyYC,e - 09^5-2005 . 70 : 23 \ ♦ Srra KiafiGwha Ua<U.SicyY&E 09^5-2005 8;
24 ; ZaTar fcnam ' LatyU.SKJiT&E * 09'06-200J ■ sa • .2* /•rjyn Ore on - UafJ.SkVY&H 09-05-20K. 7& 2S . ; • ! Shrf fcSate i HbCJS^riiS ■ OWK-KO& 75 27 5 ; Shrf Sunfi Kumar Kahar - UJHU.aifY&E ; 0&-05.2005 ; . 67 25 : ^ i ShriChandresh Ahir ; L&ihUSOfY&E ..-.0WJ5.3KS *, U*, , x . Sm:. 'Kishmatu! i-lsslsa La^U.Sc>'Y&E ' 0W&-20® 30 Shn ?. Sar»am ut<U.SkyV&E 09-05«200? 9; 21 ; 22 l Shn Jayswo Shaw Lo£)(U.SKVY6E 09-05-2000 SS Sijfi CtsAdrs Stir-?1.- Cteoaf USvlJ.Si>'Y6E 03-05-2005 $5 32 ! {Shrf O^ak .Sham* r 34 } •; LatKD.S^YSE 09-05-2005 , * 58» f i. I Shn Rkitu Haider : UbOJ^yxe ;* 09-05-2005 ; 68 ! • 35 ! i ' ^ jShri&sep Kumar Sfejgft ; Ub(U.S(yYfiE " 03-05-2005 65 i i 37 JShtfBSasfc l Ctend&Mtndil '-: •s LDCTSiiXS * n r
« I Smt. Usfta Kevvat * ;--------
• : ----i-i' ■ r- ''•,
35 1 la&fU^SJOTYfiE,*.1^05-2005' ; $6< .
' . r ■
'A
-y j Sttti. Sumia Sencupta LDOIB
V'
> $gr
40 ;
• Smi. Be^cty-Sai^sr
, Ub(U.SOiY&E>.i <XW^20&5 t 63 , . I
t
4j
Shn Sentosh Kumar Kurmi Ls^U.SW&E 1<4-6fr-2K*5
* ^ r5?' ,
42 ;! Smi. Ssnz OraKr^wrty t . la&OJ.Skyy&E i 2O07-2X5 .66 ' * ;
i Smt. PhutmrtSofeng i
UtXU^yy&E j '21^07-2005 ^?Vf
v±Li______
i SJiri Samsija.SSn^
76
tjalfetyr'A ., > Lah(U SKyY6£ | 2WJ7-200E eft..-;
UtKU^yY&E j (S-1&-2005 76
It is evident that even, in 2000, at least 6 candidates who scored way below 69, were granted appointment.
Ld. Counsel would therefore allege that the employee having passed away on 05.07.1998 was no reason for not placing the case of the applicant before the Board of Officers in 1999 and 2000 when the applicant submitted her application in the year of 1998 itself.
I if >-
6i At hearing. Id. Counsel for respondents Would very fairly submit that
7. \ ! the respondents are willing to consider the matter' in terms of availability of i vacancies, in view of the fact that the score of the applicant is quite high and the i li \ applicant was not considered in the year of 2000. l It is also evident from the list of Annexure A-20 of the OA, that even in P 2001, persons with the scores of 50 and 52lway less than the applicant, have been considered and granted appointment whereas the applicant has been made to languish for no valid reason. j i
8. Therefore, discrimination meted out to the applicant is palpable and the authorities have inarguably and evidently not acted bonafide.
( ! Therefore, I would direct the respondent authorities to make an ) i honest endeavour to grant an appointment to the applicant no. 2 on r ! I compassionate ground, issuing an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, ^^untrammelled by their previous rejections, keeping in mind that the 5 years' time £ i 1 ^imit has already been done away with. i S
9. Thus the OA would stand disposed of. No*costs. i yfSEQ y (Bidisha Banerjee) pd i i i